On 3/21/25 08:15, Jeff Hugo wrote:
On 3/6/2025 11:03 AM, Lizhi Hou wrote:
+struct drm_gem_object *
+amdxdna_gem_prime_import(struct drm_device *dev, struct dma_buf
*dma_buf)
+{
+ struct dma_buf_attachment *attach;
+ struct drm_gem_object *gobj;
+ struct sg_table *sgt;
+ int ret;
+
+ attach = dma_buf_attach(dma_buf, dev->dev);
+ if (IS_ERR(attach))
+ return ERR_CAST(attach);
+
+ get_dma_buf(dma_buf);
+
+ sgt = dma_buf_map_attachment_unlocked(attach, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
+ if (IS_ERR(sgt)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(sgt);
+ goto fail_detach;
+ }
+
+ gobj = drm_gem_shmem_prime_import_sg_table(dev, attach, sgt);
+ if (IS_ERR(gobj)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(gobj);
+ goto fail_unmap;
+ }
+
+ gobj->import_attach = attach;
+ gobj->resv = dma_buf->resv;
+
+ return gobj;
+
+fail_unmap:
+ dma_buf_unmap_attachment_unlocked(attach, sgt, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
+fail_detach:
+ dma_buf_detach(dma_buf, attach);
+ dma_buf_put(dma_buf);
You attach() and then get(), so normal "reverse order" cleanup would
be put(), then detach(). That is not what you do here. Should this be
reordered, or should you get() then attach() first?
I referred drm_gem_prime_import_dev(). And I agree with you. It looks
better to get() before attach(). I will respin V2 which will also
contain another small update for this patch.
Thanks,
Lizhi
